Sage Advice Compendium Update

[n00b]

Not sure if any of this is relevant, but it comes from Sage Advice.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/06/30/if-you-have-a-concentration-spell-and-cast-an-offensive-con-spell-that-failed-due-st-do-you-loose-your-initial-spell/

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/10/29/does-a-ritual-require-concentration/

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/03/21/can-you-concentrate-on-a-spell-while-casting-another-spell-as-a-ritual/

[Laolir]

The components cause the spell. They are not 'the spell itself'. PHB 203:- "A spell's components are the physical (not 'magical') requirements you must meet in order to cast it!"

First: components. Then: 'the spell'.

Not trying to play Gotcha on you but, in your game, you can't interrupt ritual casting with damage? If I understand your point, you aren't concentrating on a spell, so damage shouldn't ask for Constitution saving throw?
"Taking damage. Whenever you take damage while you are concentrating on a spell, you must make a Constitution saving throw to maintain your concentration."

Just want to know how you would rule that. If you think that it shouldn't break the casting of ritual spells, then okay, your interpretation is at least consistent, and it's good if it work for you and your table.
I think it would be really strange if you can't stop the BBEG casting a ritual by hitting him hard enough, so my interpretation works better for me and my table, so we will probably have to disagree on this point!

[Max_Killjoy]

Sure. You don't realise it yet, but I'm here to help you. :smallsmile:


Do you have any idea how smug and condescending that comes across as?

[ThePolarBear]

It's a total logical mess to imagine that the cause of a thing IS the thing! It is a logical impossibility!

This is what you wrote:

"What it says under 'Components', the very first thing it says, is this:- "A spell's components are the PHYSICAL requirements you must meet in order to cast it. They are not magical themselves, they just shape the magical energies and release them into the world."

Here, you see that a requirement CAN ACTUALLY BE a requirement for something that doesn't yet exist, since the definition of requirement is "something that is needed for something else to come/stay into being". And this applies if you intend the components to be a requirement for spellcasting or for the spell!

So, yes, a spell can require concentration TO COME INTO BEING. Half of your comments are nonsensical and based on this misconception that a requirement has to SOMEHOW always be presented after the thing that requires something appears without that something.

A spell can require concentration to come into being, like ALL the spells with a longer casting time do, BECAUSE longer casting time spells require concentration to be cast.
The rule is about casting a spell that requires concentration, and this applies both if the spell exists and to remain in existance it requires concentration and if the spell requires concentration to come into being. Whether that requirement is for a spell TO BE a spell or to REMAIN a spell it's irrelevant.


The discussion is rooted in "clarifications" from Sage Advice.

No.

[Arial Black]

Do you have any idea how smug and condescending that comes across as?

Yes. :smallsmile:

It's how I cope with those who blatantly don't understand. I do it instead of swearing and shouting.

[Arial Black]

Not trying to play Gotcha on you but, in your game, you can't interrupt ritual casting with damage? If I understand your point, you aren't concentrating on a spell, so damage shouldn't ask for Constitution saving throw?
"Taking damage. Whenever you take damage while you are concentrating on a spell, you must make a Constitution saving throw to maintain your concentration."

Just want to know how you would rule that. If you think that it shouldn't break the casting of ritual spells, then okay, your interpretation is at least consistent, and it's good if it work for you and your table.
I think it would be really strange if you can't stop the BBEG casting a ritual by hitting him hard enough, so my interpretation works better for me and my table, so we will probably have to disagree on this point!

Thank you for asking this question, because my answer will help make my position clear. It obviously isn't clear at the moment, because if it was then you'd know the answer already.

First, let me say again that 'concentration = concentration'! Both sides of this debate are in complete agreement about this, but for some reason the other side of this debate thinks that I think that there are different kinds of concentration. I don't think that at all!

However, you can concentrate on different things! You can concentrate on maintaining a spell because its duration is 'Concentration, up to (whatever)'. You can concentrate on casting a spell, which is a different thing because, among other things, while you are in the process of casting a spell then the spell itself literally cannot exist yet!

Now we come to the part of the rules that can make you lose concentration. They apply, no matter what you're concentrating on, because 'concentration = concentration'.

However, the bullet point list of the things that can make you lose your concentration each tell you when that bullet point applies, and sometimes a bullet point does apply when you are concentrating on one kind of thing, but does not apply when concentrating on another type of thing, and the bullet point itself will tell you when it applies.

Happy so far? Good.

So let's go through the bullet points, leaving the misunderstood one for last:-

* Taking damage. Whenever you take damage while you are concentrating on a spell (as opposed to concentrating on casting a spell!), you must make a Constitution saving throw to maintain your concentration.

For this one, if this were the only rule that applied then damage would not make you lose concentration on casting a spell! However, under the 'Longer Casting Times' rule then "if your concentration is broken then the spell fails". This means that damage will mean that the spell is never actually cast in the first place if you fail the save, because your concentration on casting it has been ended by the damage. The Longer Casting Times rule makes the damage bullet point also apply to casting and not just the spell itself.

* Being incapacitated or killed. You lose concentration on a spell (not casting a spell!) if you are incapacitated or if you die.

Again, it only applies if you are concentrating on 'a spell'. It does not apply to when you are concentrating on casting a spell. However, it must be said that if you become incapacitated or killed while in the middle of casting a spell then the casting is never successfully completed, therefore the spell itself never comes into being.

This last part is not a bullet point therefore not part of the actual rule, but it mentions at the end that "The DM might also decide that certain environmental phenomena, such as a wave crashing over you while you're on a storm-tossed ship, require you to succeed on a DC 10 Constitution saving throw to maintain concentration on a spell." While this does not apply to casting a spell, it has to be said that as well as the DM maybe deciding you have to make that save to continue concentrating on 'a spell', he might also decide to make you pass a save to continue concentrating on casting a spell! He's well within his rights to do so, because neither is an actual rule, just a ruling.

Now we come to the contentious bullet point:-

* Casting another spell which requires concentration. You lose concentration on a spell (not casting a spell!) if you cast another spell which requires concentration (not 'another spell whose casting requires concentration'!). You cannot concentrate on two spells at once (although this does not prevent you from concentrating on one spell and concentrating on something that is not 'a spell'!).

So, if you are already concentrating on, say, hex, and then start casting another spell which is not 'a spell which requires concentration', then the rule does not apply! Alarm is not 'a spell which requires concentration', so it being in existence does not meet the 'cannot concentrate on two spells at once' clause, and casting that spell (the mundane process of speaking and gesturing precisely), while the casting process requires concentration, the 'spell itself' does not, so the 'if you cast another spell which requires concentration' does not apply, and neither does the 'two spells at once' clause apply because at that point only hex exists; alarm does not exist yet.

So I now ask you, whether or not you agree with my conclusions, have I successfully conveyed what my case actually IS?

[ProsecutorGodot]

* Casting another spell which requires concentration. You lose concentration on a spell (not casting a spell!) if you cast another spell which requires concentration (not 'another spell whose casting requires concentration'!). You cannot concentrate on two spells at once (although this does not prevent you from concentrating on one spell and concentrating on something that is not 'a spell.
You have still not sufficiently explained... anything, really.
- You keep saying you agree that concentration = concentration but you also say that "concentrating on casting a spell" means something different than "casting a spell which requires concentration". This doesn't make sense.
- You're really fixated on this "The spell does not exist yet" argument when the rules say nothing about whether or not the spell has to have any effect to take your concentration. They do say that casting for longer than one action/reaction does. You've given this argument so much weight with ZERO support for it.
-You have created a second form of concentration. The only way to begin concentrating is to cast a spell. Even class abilities that require concentration specify that they function as if you cast a spell. Despite this, the entire basis of your argument requires that the concentration involved in casting to be different than the concentration involved in a spell that you've already cast (it's difficult to even word this because the PHB makes no such distinction between "casting" and "cast"). The bullet point uses both words interchangeably, yet you think that they mean something different.
- I really, genuinely tried to approach your argument with respect and understanding but you've been nothing but rude, condescending and dismissive. You've either fabricated an idea (such as casting not meaning casting when you decide it doesn't mean the same thing) or just outright called any counter argument "Ridiculous!" and ignored it.

If you feel the need to reply and tell me how misinformed and "ridiculous!" I am for not understanding, please send it to me via PM.

[Zalabim]

Casting a spell is not a mundane process. It involves magical energies, either from your own spell slots or by gathering them on demand in the form of a ritual. It is not something where 'copying the motions' will create the same result. There is a power, something metaphysical, or a mental aspect that goes with it.

[ThePolarBear]

So I now ask you, whether or not you agree with my conclusions, have I successfully conveyed what my case actually IS?

It was clear, but even if you look at "concentrating while casting" as "concentrating on casting", which is NOT a given,the problem is that IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU ARE CONCENTRATING ON, but if it is the spell that you are casting or maintaining requires concentration AT ALL.


So, if you are already concentrating on, say, hex, and then start casting another spell which is not 'a spell which requires concentration', then the rule does not apply!

And up to this we agree, but


Alarm is not 'a spell which requires concentration'

Why? WHY? You do not touch this point. You take this assumption, and proceed to build up an interpretation that hinges on this, but you never ADDRESS why this should be true. You are being called out on this:

What is that makes you think that this is the case?
How come that "casting a spell with a longer casting time requires concentration" is due to "casting requires concentration" out for the blue, with no rule supporting this, since casting a spell DOES NOT, in general, require concentration?

ritual spells require more time to cast.
more time to cast requires concentration
ritual spells require concentration

Is this not valid logic?

Prehaps now you can understand this phrase:
"Changing the order of what action is required to concentrate on FOR A SPELL TO WORK is doesn't change the fact that IT'S THAT SPELL that requires the concentration in the first place for that action to be performed on it or with it."

It has never been "spellcasting requires concentration" by itself - it has always been a function of "a spell with a longer casting time". You can only change order of actions (verbs, if you prefer), so that you have "Casting a spell", or "A spell being cast" or even "a spell [...] to be cast", as long as all the times are still relevant for the truth of the phrase.

Spellcasting CAN require concentration, prehaps, but if and only if you are casting a spell with a longer casting time.

[Unoriginal]

If you can't cast a specific spell without using concentration, then the spell requires concentration.

No spell with a casting time of more than 1 action can be cast without using concentration.

[PhoenixPhyre]

No spell with a casting time of more than 1 action can be cast without using concentration.

Except using wish, but that's a special case of special cases.

Otherwise, you're exactly correct and this whole discussion is mind-boggling. Goes to show that even the most clear rules (can't concentrate on 2 things at once) can be misinterpreted if someone tries hard enough.

[Unoriginal]

Except using wish, but that's a special case of special cases.

Well it's because you're not casting the spell, you're casting Wish and duplicating the effects, without the casting time.



Otherwise, you're exactly correct and this whole discussion is mind-boggling. Goes to show that even the most clear rules (can't concentrate on 2 things at once) can be misinterpreted if someone tries hard enough.

Indeed.

[n00b]

Except using wish, but that's a special case of special cases.

Otherwise, you're exactly correct and this whole discussion is mind-boggling. Goes to show that even the most clear rules (can't concentrate on 2 things at once) can be misinterpreted if someone tries hard enough.

And someone is definitely trying hard. It's even been addressed by Crawford in Tweets and included in the Compendium. Heck I even included a link earlier that's evidently been ignored. A little Google can go a long way.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And someone is definitely trying hard. It's even been addressed by Crawford in Tweets and included in the Compendium. Heck I even included a link earlier that's evidently been ignored. A little Google can go a long way.

Yeah. This is a case of willful ignorance/avoidance. A strong case of "I want to believe!" in the face of all the evidence. No amount of discussion will change minds.

[Max_Killjoy]

Otherwise, you're exactly correct and this whole discussion is mind-boggling. Goes to show that even the most clear rules (can't concentrate on 2 things at once) can be misinterpreted if someone tries hard enough.


I lost what exactly the discussion was about -- could someone summarize if they don't mind alleviating my confusion?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I lost what exactly the discussion was about -- could someone summarize if they don't mind alleviating my confusion?

Basically, can you have a concentration (duration) spell active while you cast a spell with cast time longer than 1 action (which by the text requires concentration while casting).

The obvious (and confirmed by SA in the compendium) answer is no. Concentration is concentration. Starting to cast a spell that requires concentration (either due to duration or due to cast time) cancels your ongoing concentration effect.

[n00b]

Yes. :smallsmile:

It's how I cope with those who blatantly don't understand. I do it instead of swearing and shouting.


Maybe he should have just started swearing and shouting? Instead of trying to be more wrong?

[Unoriginal]

I lost what exactly the discussion was about -- could someone summarize if they don't mind alleviating my confusion?

Arial Black is claiming that concentration to maintain a spell with a concentration duration is a concept different from concentration to cast a spell with more than 1 action of casting time, and so it is possible to maintain concentration on a spell with a concentration duration, such as Invisibility, at the same time you maintain concentration on a spell that takes longer than one round to be cast, such as Alarm.

This despite the fact the game does not differentiate between what you're concentrating for, and explicitly says that you can't concentrate on two spells that require concentration at once.

I think Arial Black is also claiming that casting any spell, even the ones that use an action, bonus action or reaction, requires concentration (apparently based on a 3.X era rule about maintaining concentration when your casting is interrupted and the belief this part of spellcasting didn't change through the editions... when spellcasting and how magic works as a whole changed).

[Xetheral]

As much as I disagree with Arial Black's interpretation, I don't see anything in this thread that suggests dishonesty or willful ignorance. In my opinion, one's belief that another poster is wrong (no matter how strong that belief) is never valid evidence of bad faith.

[PhoenixPhyre]

As much as I disagree with Arial Black's interpretation, I don't see anything in this thread that suggests dishonesty or willful ignorance. In my opinion, one's belief that another poster is wrong (no matter how strong that belief) is never valid evidence of bad faith.

I don't know what else to call persistence in an objectively wrong position in the face of direct, on-point rules citations other than willful ignorance. Especially if you also dismiss others as obviously wrong in condescending tones without actually addressing their arguments.

If he presented it as "here's my ruling" or "here's my preference", that would be opinion. Presenting it as "here are the rules and any one who disagrees is stupid" is not an opinion, it's a statement of (incorrect) fact.

[Xetheral]

I don't know what else to call persistence in an objectively wrong position in the face of direct, on-point rules citations other than willful ignorance. Especially if you also dismiss others as obviously wrong in condescending tones without actually addressing their arguments.

If he presented it as "here's my ruling" or "here's my preference", that would be opinion. Presenting it as "here are the rules and any one who disagrees is stupid" is not an opinion, it's a statement of (incorrect) fact.

I would argue that there does not exist a method to objectively determine whch of two textual interpretations is correct. Text has too much inherent ambiguity to be subject to outright proof. Instead, one can only decide which of the interpretations is more convincing. Honest people can disagree in good faith on which of two interpretations is more convincing. Hence, disagreement on its own cannot be proof of dishonesty or bad faith.

Even if there were a method to objectively determine which of two interpretations was correct, it's still possible for someone to honestly be unconvinced by valid arguments to that effect. In such a case, the unconvinced party would be objectively wrong, but their continued disagreement would be honest and made in good faith. Here, again, disagreement on its own cannot be proof of dishonesty or bad faith.

(In the context of a forum discussion I am considering wilful ignorance to be a form of bad faith.)

I think reasonable people can honestly disagree as to whether an objectionable tone and/or impoliteness can be relied upon as evidence of arguing in bad faith. But I don't think either can be used as evidence of wilful ignorance, because both those who are objectively correct and those who are willfully ignorant can use any tone.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I would argue that there does not exist a method to objectively determine whch of two textual interpretations is correct. Text has too much inherent ambiguity to be subject to outright proof. Instead, one can only decide which of the interpretations is more convincing. Honest people can disagree in good faith on which of two interpretations is more convincing. Hence, disagreement on its own cannot be proof of dishonesty or bad faith.

Even if there were a method to objectively determine which of two interpretations was correct, it's still possible for someone to honestly be unconvinced by valid arguments to that effect. In such a case, the unconvinced party would be objectively wrong, but their continued disagreement would be honest and made in good faith. Here, again, disagreement on its own cannot be proof of dishonesty or bad faith.

(In the context of a forum discussion I am considering wilful ignorance to be a form of bad faith.)

I think reasonable people can honestly disagree as to whether an objectionable tone and/or impoliteness can be relied upon as evidence of arguing in bad faith. But I don't think either can be used as evidence of wilful ignorance, because both those who are objectively correct and those who are willfully ignorant can use any tone.

At some point the evidence is overwhelming, especially about factual matters. And when it's about the intent of someone who has explicitly said otherwise, it's not ambiguous. People can disagree, but they can't always disagree in good faith. 1+1 = 2, no matter what anyone might say. And this text is as clear as is reasonably possible and there is explicit SA on the matter, with this exact question.

[Xetheral]

At some point the evidence is overwhelming, especially about factual matters. And when it's about the intent of someone who has explicitly said otherwise, it's not ambiguous. People can disagree, but they can't always disagree in good faith. 1+1 = 2, no matter what anyone might say. And this text is as clear as is reasonably possible and there is explicit SA on the matter, with this exact question.

If two people disagree as to whether the evidence is sufficiently overwhelming, what process do you suggest for determining whether further disagreement demonstrates bad faith?

I would argue that in the absence of such a process, your claim is irrelevant in practice, even if it's true. Why does it matter if there is a point beyond which evidence is sufficiently overwhelming that further disagreement is evidence of bad faith if there is no way to determine whether that point has been reached?

[ThePolarBear]

If two people disagree as to whether the evidence is sufficiently overwhelming, what process do you suggest for determining whether further disagreement demonstrates bad faith?

I think that if cooking bacon and eggs requires eggs, eggs are required to cook bacon and eggs; thus eggs are required for bacon and eggs to be cooked, then to be cooked, bacon and eggs requires eggs.

But, hey, i might be wrong.

[Xetheral]

I think that if cooking bacon and eggs requires eggs, eggs are required to cook bacon and eggs; thus eggs are required for bacon and eggs to be cooked, then to be cooked, bacon and eggs requires eggs.

But, hey, i might be wrong.

:). Of course, if there was a rule that required a character to cook bacon and eggs, I could see there being honest disagreement as to whether "eggs" is being used generally, in which case egg whites or egg substitutes might be acceptable, or whether "eggs" is being used specifically to exclude egg whites and egg substitutes.

[PhoenixPhyre]

:). Of course, if there was a rule that required a character to cook bacon and eggs, I could see there being honest disagreement as to whether "eggs" is being used generally, in which case egg whites or egg substitutes might be acceptable, or whether "eggs" is being used specifically to exclude egg whites and egg substitutes.

But this is much more like someone saying that no, "cook bacon and eggs" really means to smash potatoes against a wall and not even responding to any other arguments except with condescension. His argument was pure sophistry and casuistry.

[Aimeryan]

I think I may be the only one here who seems to understand Arial Black's position:



The text says you cannot concentrate on two spells at the same time.
Other than clause number 1, the text does not say you cannot concentrate on a spell and something else at the same time.
Casting a spell is not the spell, ergo, concentrating on casting a spell does not invoke clause number 1 - it is a subset of clause number 2.


To put this in another way, can you think of other things you can concentrate on doing, other than casting a spell? I can; standing on one leg, holding an object aloft, keeping some numbers in my head, etc. Concentrating on these things would not cause you to drop a spell that required concentration - nothing says it does. Casting a spell is just another form of activity that requires concentration. Casting itself is not a spell; a spell is the result of casting. Crafting a table is not a table; the table is the result of that crafting.

[ThePolarBear]

:). Of course, if there was a rule that required a character to cook bacon and eggs, I could see there being honest disagreement as to whether "eggs" is being used generally, in which case egg whites or egg substitutes might be acceptable, or whether "eggs" is being used specifically to exclude egg whites and egg substitutes.

:D I'm pretty sure that recipes nowadays are usually wide-purpose enough to implement "or substitutes".
Either way, recipes are an exception based system, so if something works "like an egg", then it's fair game for me.


I think I may be the only one here who seems to understand Arial Black's position:

And i can assure you that this is not the case.


The text says you cannot concentrate on two spells at the same time.

It also says that casting a spell that requires concentration breaks concentration. See example of eggs.

I could also repeat how the wording on the concentration part of the rules boils down to "maintaining X spell requires concentration", which goes back to example of eggs, so if you see that maintaining a spell requires concentration, there's no difference with "casting" as the verb. Again, see example of eggs.

At which point the only answer he gave for it is "X doesn't require concentration". And the only reason that is "require concentration means that has a duration of concentration". Which has the same persuasive power as "require concentration means it's red", and the same text related basis.

I do understand the point. i see no reason to say anything other than "it's fantasy". And the fact that each time there's a plethora of unuseful information covered at the criticism that is "<require concentration" means "require concentration", and X does require concentration for this reason> ...


Crafting a table is not a table; the table is the result of that crafting.

Does crafting a table require concentration? See example with eggs.

[Arial Black]

I think I may be the only one here who seems to understand Arial Black's position:



The text says you cannot concentrate on two spells at the same time.
Other than clause number 1, the text does not say you cannot concentrate on a spell and something else at the same time.
Casting a spell is not the spell, ergo, concentrating on casting a spell does not invoke clause number 1 - it is a subset of clause number 2.


To put this in another way, can you think of other things you can concentrate on doing, other than casting a spell? I can; standing on one leg, holding an object aloft, keeping some numbers in my head, etc. Concentrating on these things would not cause you to drop a spell that required concentration - nothing says it does. Casting a spell is just another form of activity that requires concentration. Casting itself is not a spell; a spell is the result of casting. Crafting a table is not a table; the table is the result of that crafting.

Thank you!

When I say that "concentration = concentration", but "concentrating on a spell =/= concentrating on casting a spell", this is because "casting a spell =/= the spell".

Thanks for the table analogy. :smallsmile:

For the purpose of the analogy, 'table' = 'spell that has a duration of Concentration, up to (whatever)', 'chair' = 'a spell whose duration does not require concentration', and 'constructing' a piece of furniture' = 'casting a spell'.

Some pieces of furniture require your concentration, like the table. Some pieces of furniture do not, like the chair.

Sometimes the constructing of a piece of furniture, whether or not it is a table or a chair, requires concentration. This is the case when it takes longer than usual to construct any piece of furniture.

Sure, the rules say that you must concentrate on your table, and if you lose concentration on your table then it pops out of existence. But if you constructed a chair then there is no requirement to concentrate on that. The chair will not pop out of existence, once it exists, for lack of concentration.

It also says that you cannot concentrate on two tables at once. It does not say that you can't concentrate on one table and one chair! The chair does not require concentration!

The rule also says that if you are currently concentrating on a table you previously constructed, the table will pop out of existence if you construct another table. There is no rule that says your table will disappear if you construct a chair, even if you have to concentrate on constructing that chair!

The rule does not say you cannot concentrate on one table and anything else at the same time, whether that 'anything else' is a chair or even the construction of a chair! It only says that you cannot concentrate on two tables at the same time!

[ProsecutorGodot]

Building an analogy out of the problem doesn't really support anyones argument. All it does is allow the one making the analogy to make their point by removing the contradictory evidence.

When you decide that your analogy only involves tables and chairs (or bacon and eggs) because that's convenient to proving your point, we can't reasonably argue otherwise because the analogy was created to exclude any argument otherwise.

All we'd end up doing is arguing over whether the analogy is accurate. It doesn't help anyones case to excludr the context in this way.

Keep it in the books terms.

[Arial Black]

Building an analogy out of the problem doesn't really support anyones argument. All it does is allow the one making the analogy to make their point by removing the contradictory evidence.

When you decide that your analogy only involves tables and chairs (or bacon and eggs) because that's convenient to proving your point, we can't reasonably argue otherwise because the analogy was created to exclude any argument otherwise.

All we'd end up doing is arguing over whether the analogy is accurate. It doesn't help anyones case to excludr the context in this way.

Keep it in the books terms.

The analogy itself does not decide the issue.

The purpose of this or any other analogy is to make the case clear.

In this case, a 'spell which requires concentration' =/= a 'spell that does not require concentration', even though both are 'spells'. A table is not a chair, even though both are pieces of furniture.

Also, 'casting a spell' =/= a 'spell'. 'Constructing a chair' =/= a 'chair'.

I don't mind if someone disagrees with my conclusions, but I do mind my arguments being misrepresented. The purpose of the analogy is to make it clear what my case actually IS, to avoid people wasting everyone's time arguing against a claim I'm not making, and suggesting I'm doing so in bad faith. Arguments stand or fall on their own merits not on the intentions of the debater, and it's poor form to assume bad faith simply because someone doesn't realise what my case actually is.

[ProsecutorGodot]

The analogy itself does not decide the issue.

The purpose of this or any other analogy is to make the case clear.

In this case, a 'spell which requires concentration' =/= a 'spell that does not require concentration', even though both are 'spells'. A table is not a chair, even though both are pieces of furniture.

Also, 'casting a spell' =/= a 'spell'. 'Constructing a chair' =/= a 'chair'.

I don't mind if someone disagrees with my conclusions, but I do mind my arguments being misrepresented. The purpose of the analogy is to make it clear what my case actually IS, to avoid people wasting everyone's time arguing against a claim I'm not making, and suggesting I'm doing so in bad faith. Arguments stand or fall on their own merits not on the intentions of the debater, and it's poor form to assume bad faith simply because someone doesn't realise what my case actually is.

I understand your argument, but it's based on facts that you haven't proven. Your argument is based on casting a spell not counting as concentrating on a spell.

This doesn't logically make sense because in relation to the concentration rules "casting" and "cast" are used interchangeably to mean the same thing.

You also assert that "casting" is unrelated to the spell and since it is, you can concentrate on "casting a spell" and "maintaining a spell" which again doesn't logically follow because in both cases you are concentrating on a spell. You can only cast spells. If you are concentrating on "casting" then it involves a spell.

You have yet to provide evidence of a way to begin concentrating that does not involve casting spell. Every game mechanic that asks for your concentration is equated to casting a spell.

[Unoriginal]

If the spell needs concentration to work, then it requires concentration.

It doesn't matter for WHAT it requires concentration. The fact is that concentration is the requirement for the spell to work.

[ThePolarBear]

"concentration = concentration", but "concentrating on a spell =/= concentrating on casting a spell", this is because "casting a spell =/= the spell".

cooking bacon and eggs requires eggs, eggs are required to cook bacon and eggs; thus eggs are required for bacon and eggs to be cooked, then to be cooked, bacon and eggs requires eggs.

Bacon and eggs =/= eggs, but it doesn't matter.

See the problem now?It's not that you are concentrating on a spell or concentrating on casting a spell, but a spell requires concentration because casting that spell requires concentration. There's a difference, and you are still missing it.


Thanks for the table analogy. :smallsmile:

For the purpose of the analogy, 'table' = 'spell that has a duration of Concentration, up to (whatever)', 'chair' = 'a spell whose duration does not require concentration', and 'constructing' a piece of furniture' = 'casting a spell'.

Let's go with furniture then! *pushes away the dishes and takes out some carpenter tools*


Some pieces of furniture require your concentration, like the table. Some pieces of furniture do not, like the chair.

We already are starting in a very bad way, putting what we want to try and prove as an hypotesis. But hey, let's go with it anyway.


Sometimes the constructing of a piece of furniture, whether or not it is a table or a chair, requires concentration. This is the case when it takes longer than usual to construct any piece of furniture.

So, contructing a piece of forniture with a longer crafting time requires concentration.
A chair is a piece of forniture with a longer crafting time
Crafting a chair requires concentration.
Concentration is required to craft a chair.
concentration is required for a chair to be crafted
to be crafted, a chair requires concentration.

A chair requires concentration =/= a chair doesn't require concentration.

I think i just proved, by contradiction, that a chair does, in fact, require concentration if crafting it requires concentration.


I don't mind if someone disagrees with my conclusions, but I do mind my arguments being misrepresented.

It is not about your argument being misrepresented. It's about your argument being inconsistent with itself since it's based on assumptions that are easily provably false with arguments you agree on.

[Aimeryan]

If the spell needs concentration to work, then it requires concentration.

It doesn't matter for WHAT it requires concentration. The fact is that concentration is the requirement for the spell to work.

Sure, and the sun is hot, but what does that have to do with the price of milk?



I understand your argument, but it's based on facts that you haven't proven. Your argument is based on casting a spell not counting as concentrating on a spell.1

This doesn't logically make sense because in relation to the concentration rules "casting" and "cast" are used interchangeably to mean the same thing.2

You also assert that "casting" is unrelated to the spell and since it is, you can concentrate on "casting a spell" and "maintaining a spell" which again doesn't logically follow because in both cases you are concentrating on a spell. You can only cast spells. If you are concentrating on "casting" then it involves a spell.3

You have yet to provide evidence of a way to begin concentrating that does not involve casting spell. Every game mechanic that asks for your concentration is equated to casting a spell.4


1 Agreed; the process of constructing something is not the something itself.


2 This is written in English and English has tense which conveys the timing of the verb. 'Cast' is a past or future tense (depends on context), 'casting' is present tense. Here is the text from the book:

You lose concentration on a spell if you cast another spell that requires concentration. You can't concentrate on two spells at once.

You haven't cast a spell until you have finished casting, ergo, the concentration clause is not invoked until you have finished casting. An analogy here is that you haven't crafted a table until you have finished crafting a table. If something happens when you have a table it would not happen until the crafting process is finished (you don't have a table until that point).

Now, why does this matter? If you are casting a spell that requires concentration you would lose the current spell that requires concentration when the casting is complete. However, this is still a useful distinction; losing invisibility before you cast a spell and losing it afterwards can make all the difference while you are casting.

Note that this is not related to the concentration required during long casting times, it relates to a spell that requires concentration.



3 If I follow correctly, you are asserting you would have a table the moment you started constructing a table? I would say you have parts of a table, maybe a finished leg or two, but you don't have a table until you have all the parts and have assembled it correctly. Constructing a spell does not mean you have a spell; you have parts of a spell. You'll get the spell when your finished.



4 Casting a spell may involve concentration, just like doing maths and balancing on a log. Crafting a table may involve concentration. Concentrating on doing something is not automatically equivalent to concentrating on a spell. Concentrating on crafting a table is not the same a concentrating on a table. Concentrating on casting a spell is not the same a concentrating on a spell. Concentrating on a process is not the same as concentrating on the product.

[CorporateSlave]

Although I like analogies as much as the next bloke, I agree they are less than useless when arguing finer points of legal language (or D&D rules), because they do simply illustrate what "I think" the "right" interpretation is. If you're making a judgement based on precise wording, you need to stick to the precise wording. In this case, unless I am mistaken, the wording in question is:

Longer Casting Times
Certain spells (including spells cast as rituals) require more time to cast: minutes or even hours. When you cast a spell with a casting time longer than a single action or reaction, you must spend your action each turn casting the spell, and you must maintain your concentration while you do so. If your concentration is broken, the spell fails, but you don't expend a spell slot. If you want to try casting the spell again, you must start over.

Concentration
Some spells require you to maintain concentration in order to keep their magic active. If you lose concentration, such a spell ends.

If a spell must be maintained with concentration, that fact appears in its Duration entry, and the spell specifies how long you can concentrate on it. You can end concentration at any time (no action required).

Normal activity, such as moving and attacking, doesn't interfere with concentration. The following factors can break concentration:

Casting another spell that requires concentration. You lose concentration on a spell if you cast another spell that requires concentration. You can't concentrate on two spells at once.
Taking damage. Whenever you take damage while you are concentrating on a spell, you must make a Constitution saving throw to maintain your concentration. The DC equals 10 or half the damage you take, whichever number is higher. If you take damage from multiple sources, such as an arrow and a dragon's breath, you make a separate saving throw for each source of damage.
Being incapacitated or killed. You lose concentration on a spell if you are incapacitated or if you die.

So am I correct that the question is, can one maintain concentration on a spell that requires concentration, while casting any other spell that has a casting time longer than one action (even if that spell itself does not require concentration?)

Lets face it, the RAW are a bit ambiguous, hence why the debate has gone into the finer points of casting magical spells and tables and eggs analogies. However, this does illustrate why I like Sage Advice...granted a DM can-should-will rule as they see fit. However, I am always curious in these cases as to what the game designers had in mind. They may specifically have wanted it one way or the other in order to maintain what they saw as proper game balance. I've seen many DM rulings that seemed like a good idea at the time even though it went against what was most likely RAI, only to find out it created some imbalance down the road...a couple of times utterly breaking the campaign and ending it.

Another rule to consider in the context I would say is the wording of the Ready action as it relates to spell casting:

When you ready a spell, you cast it as normal but hold its energy, which you release with your reaction when the trigger occurs. To be readied, a spell must have a casting time of 1 action, and holding onto the spell's magic requires concentration. If your concentration is broken, the spell dissipates without taking effect. For example, if you are concentrating on the web spell and ready magic missile, your web spell ends, and if you take damage before you release magic missile with your reaction, your concentration might be broken.

Here the rules explicitly state that even if the spell itself does not require concentration (i.e. Magic Missile), because of how it is being cast (casting then holding), it requires concentration, so the other spell you are concentrating is lost, regardless of whether the first spell ever takes affect.

I understand that this is slightly different in that the Readied spell is already cast - unlike a long casting time spell which is still in the process of being cast - but it seems to illustrate the game designers' intent that you can only ever concentrate on one magic related situation at a time, so maintaining concentration on a long casting time spell would cause one to lose concentration on another spell that required concentration to maintain. Or another way of looking at it; although the spell description does not require concentration, some aspect of the casting does.

"Casting another spell that requires concentration. You lose concentration on a spell if you cast another spell that requires concentration." The rule uses both "casting" and "cast" tenses of "to cast," so it seems that either would apply equally.

Two full pages of forum threads that could be sorted with a worthless 140 character tweet...just saying'

Thoughts? (angry or otherwise?)

[Unoriginal]

Sure, and the sun is hot, but what does that have to do with the price of milk?


Arial Black (and you too, if I follow you correctly) is asserting that casting a spell that has a casting time of more than one action is not casting a spell that requires concentration.

It is incorrect, because it is not possible to cast a spell that has a casting time of more than one action without concentration (some magic items allow you to reduce the casting time, though, so that's a way to avoid this issue, but that's not the point).

Ergo, a spell with a casting time of more than one action requires concentration.

Which means that it is not possible to cast Alarm (by your own power) while concentrating on Invisibility, as both spells require concentration.

[druid91]

You don't have to use it, clearly.


The books have exactly as much weight as these official rulings do. Zero, if your DM chooses to rule differently. It absolutely boggles my mind how much of competition there is for who can dislike being offered advice more. It's not forced on you and it's a terrific resource for the people who search it out to make use of it. I don't know why some insist on making it seem like the very idea of advice being offered is offensive, to such a degree that they'll flaunt how much they're willing to "not play the game they paid for because this advice column exists"

The issue is it's not treated as advice. It's treated as 'This is the rules.'


What's the difference between a Sage Advice ruling and one that exists within the PHB? Same people are making the decisions, aren't they? Does Sage Advice get checked past other devs? I don't get how clarifications on intent made after the fact is less valid than what's in the books. Do the handbooks get priority because they're some big fancy physical Thing?

The above is not an uncommon attitude amongst those who give Sage advice merit.

Anyone can tell you that Tinkering over time can degrade the quality of a product. Just look at starwars.

Sage advice is nonsensical, contradictory, and Ultimately damaging to fifth edition as a whole.

[n00b]

I guess I'm not sure where the hangup is? The rules say you can't do it. The Lead Rules Designer for WotC says you can't do it. I mean if you want to run it differently in your own game at home that's fine. But why stand there shouting to anyone and everyone that the rules say you can?

[ProsecutorGodot]

You haven't cast a spell until you have finished casting, ergo, the failure clause is not invoked until you have finished casting.
This is the point of contention that hasn't been proven. "Casting" and "Cast" mean the same thing in relation to concentration, which I can prove. Open your PHB to page 200 and read along with me. You do not have to be proficient with Carpenter's Tools or a Cooking Set to participate.
-First and foremost, the broadest term that all of these rules fall under is "Casting a Spell". Casting Time, Range, Components, Duration, Targets, Area of Effect, Saving Throws, Attack Rolls and Combining Magical Effects are all subsections in this rule section.
-The first sentence in this section is "When a character casts any spell, the same basic rules are followed regardless of the character's class or the spell's effects". This right here is already using the term "Casting" and "Cast" interchangeably in reference to the rules of Casting a Spell.
-It continues to use "Casting" and "Cast" interchangeably, under the subsection "Casting Time" wherein the first sentence it says "Most spells require a single action to cast, but some spells require a bonus action, a reaction, or much more time to cast." it's using "Cast" to describe "Casting" here, as the words are interchangeable.
-This repeats in "Longer Casting Times" under the "Casting Time" subsection where we can read "Certain spells (including spells cast as rituals) require more time to cast: minutes or even hours. When you cast a spell with a casting time longer than a single action or reaction, you must spend your action each turn casting the spell, and you must maintain your concentration while you do so." That underlined part is the most important. Casting Times longer than an action are accounted for when you cast a spell, and when you cast a spell with a casting time longer than a single action or reaction you maintain concentration on casting that spell.

This is sufficient in setting precedent that "Cast" and "Casting" mean the same thing and are used interchangeably where one would be grammatically incorrect. You can substitute one for the other and the meaning of the statement would not change. Now onto what breaks concentration.

-We've already learned that we need to concentrate on the casting of some spells, but where do we find the rules for that? In the "Duration" subsection of the "Casting a Spell" rules. Here we learn that some spells require concentration not just in casting, but also to persist in effect. What we're interested in is the rules for what breaks concentration, since we need to maintain it to complete casting our spell.
-Here it is, the first bullet point on what can break concentration reads as follows, "Casting another spell that requires concentration. You lose concentration on a spell if you cast another spell that requires concentration. You can't concentrate on two spells at once."

Once again "Casting" and "Cast" are used to mean the same thing. Make careful note as well that it never says that you "can't concentrate on two spells you cast" or "on the duration of two spells". Simply that you can't concentrate on two spells at once. Full stop. Concentrating on the casting of a spell is exactly the same as maintaining your concentration on a spell.

What you need to prove is that "casting a spell that requires concentration" is not related to "concentrating on casting a spell" despite very clear wording suggesting otherwise. There has been no support that I have seen for the claim that "concentrating on casting" has nothing to do with a spell.


The issue is it's not treated as advice. It's treated as 'This is the rules.'
They are very literally only the rules if your DM decides that they are.

A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions.
Sage Advice and the PHB are both very clear on this issue, getting hung up on like someone is forcing you to use them is just an excuse to be upset about it. If you're convinced that optional content is damaging to the game as a whole, I'd better see a printout of the Basic Rules only at your table because that is the absolute minimum you can play with and anything else is "tinkering over time" as well as "optional". Both are apparently very damaging to 5E.

Bonus points if you play with only the 2012 limited release playtest version of D&D Next. Then you'd really have the core experience.

[Rhedyn]

Is the hang up here for certain things like Planar Binding summoned monsters doesn't work per the rules? Even though it should and shouldn't require multiple casters to get the job done.

It's just one of those gapping holes in the rules that occurred because they were poorly thought out and then some hack on Twitter tries to make the mistake seem intensional because this isn't a subsystem that he wants to change. (We've already know that he just hates summon monster anyways)

[ThePolarBear]

Sure, and the sun is hot, but what does that have to do with the price of milk?

Because the rule is still "casting a spell that requires concentration"
Stating that you can't concentrate on two spell at once, while true, is not the full extent of the rule in question, which encompasses:
"Casting another spell that requires concentration"
"You lose concentration on a spell if you cast another spell that requires concentration."
"You can't concentrate on two spells at once."

Until someone, somehow, can convince me that, given that Arial Black agrees to: "Casting a spell (with a longer casting time) requires concentration (on the spell, on a tree, on the platypus in the garden, on cooking it, on the casting process...)"

it does not equate to
"To be cast, a spell (with a longer casting time) requires concentration (on the spell, on a tree, on the platypus in the garden, on cooking it, on the casting process...)",

I do not need to care if the casting process is the spell (it's not), what i'm concentrating on (it's not important, since it's not mentioned on the part of the rule that's relevant), or anything else superfluous.

You have it there, black on white: "a spell (with a longer casting time) requires concentration"

To go a bit further, since Arial Black is sure that the concentration goes to the casting process, there's also no wiggle room on "casting" as a timing. While casting, you are in fact casting, and are required to concentrate.

I really really really do not know how to simplify it further. I tried with cake, but i got hit with "analogy" instead of "equivalence", somehow.

[JoeJ]

Although I like analogies as much as the next bloke, I agree they are less than useless when arguing finer points of legal language (or D&D rules), because they do simply illustrate what "I think" the "right" interpretation is. If you're making a judgement based on precise wording, you need to stick to the precise wording. In this case, unless I am mistaken, the wording in question is:

Longer Casting Times
Certain spells (including spells cast as rituals) require more time to cast: minutes or even hours. When you cast a spell with a casting time longer than a single action or reaction, you must spend your action each turn casting the spell, and you must maintain your concentration while you do so. If your concentration is broken, the spell fails, but you don't expend a spell slot. If you want to try casting the spell again, you must start over.

Concentration
Some spells require you to maintain concentration in order to keep their magic active. If you lose concentration, such a spell ends.

If a spell must be maintained with concentration, that fact appears in its Duration entry, and the spell specifies how long you can concentrate on it. You can end concentration at any time (no action required).

Normal activity, such as moving and attacking, doesn't interfere with concentration. The following factors can break concentration:

Casting another spell that requires concentration. You lose concentration on a spell if you cast another spell that requires concentration. You can't concentrate on two spells at once.
Taking damage. Whenever you take damage while you are concentrating on a spell, you must make a Constitution saving throw to maintain your concentration. The DC equals 10 or half the damage you take, whichever number is higher. If you take damage from multiple sources, such as an arrow and a dragon's breath, you make a separate saving throw for each source of damage.
Being incapacitated or killed. You lose concentration on a spell if you are incapacitated or if you die.

So am I correct that the question is, can one maintain concentration on a spell that requires concentration, while casting any other spell that has a casting time longer than one action (even if that spell itself does not require concentration?)

Lets face it, the RAW are a bit ambiguous, hence why the debate has gone into the finer points of casting magical spells and tables and eggs analogies. However, this does illustrate why I like Sage Advice...granted a DM can-should-will rule as they see fit. However, I am always curious in these cases as to what the game designers had in mind. They may specifically have wanted it one way or the other in order to maintain what they saw as proper game balance. I've seen many DM rulings that seemed like a good idea at the time even though it went against what was most likely RAI, only to find out it created some imbalance down the road...a couple of times utterly breaking the campaign and ending it.

Another rule to consider in the context I would say is the wording of the Ready action as it relates to spell casting:

When you ready a spell, you cast it as normal but hold its energy, which you release with your reaction when the trigger occurs. To be readied, a spell must have a casting time of 1 action, and holding onto the spell's magic requires concentration. If your concentration is broken, the spell dissipates without taking effect. For example, if you are concentrating on the web spell and ready magic missile, your web spell ends, and if you take damage before you release magic missile with your reaction, your concentration might be broken.

Here the rules explicitly state that even if the spell itself does not require concentration (i.e. Magic Missile), because of how it is being cast (casting then holding), it requires concentration, so the other spell you are concentrating is lost, regardless of whether the first spell ever takes affect.

I understand that this is slightly different in that the Readied spell is already cast - unlike a long casting time spell which is still in the process of being cast - but it seems to illustrate the game designers' intent that you can only ever concentrate on one magic related situation at a time, so maintaining concentration on a long casting time spell would cause one to lose concentration on another spell that required concentration to maintain. Or another way of looking at it; although the spell description does not require concentration, some aspect of the casting does.

"Casting another spell that requires concentration. You lose concentration on a spell if you cast another spell that requires concentration." The rule uses both "casting" and "cast" tenses of "to cast," so it seems that either would apply equally.

Two full pages of forum threads that could be sorted with a worthless 140 character tweet...just saying'

Thoughts? (angry or otherwise?)

Good analysis, but you overlooked one detail that help make this easier to understand. In the Longer Casting Times section, right after the statement that you must maintain concentration, is the parenthetical note: see "Concentration" below. IOW, this section explicitly refers the reader to the section about concentrating on spells to explain what "concentration" means. That would be incredibly misleading if the author intended that concentrating on casting a spell was to be treated differently than concentrating on maintaining a spell.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Is the hang up here for certain things like Planar Binding summoned monsters doesn't work per the rules? Even though it should and shouldn't require multiple casters to get the job done.

It's just one of those gapping holes in the rules that occurred because they were poorly thought out and then some hack on Twitter tries to make the mistake seem intensional because this isn't a subsystem that he wants to change. (We've already know that he just hates summon monster anyways)

Actually Planar Binding tells you how to successfully summon, trap and then bind things.

Planar Binding:
Typically, the creature is first summoned into the center of an inverted magic circle in order to keep it trapped while this spell is cast.
An inverted Magic Circle is a real thing.

Magic Circle:
When you cast this spell, you can elect to cause its magic to operate in the reverse direction, preventing a creature of the specified type from leaving the cylinder and protecting targets outside it.

Out of all of the nitpicks you could have chosen, you chose one that isn't even ambiguous.

[Xetheral]

Actually Planar Binding tells you how to successfully summon, trap and then bind things.

An inverted Magic Circle is a real thing.


Out of all of the nitpicks you could have chosen, you chose one that isn't even ambiguous.

It is my understanding that Planar Binding suffers from several, overlapping problems.

The first is that the duration of Magic Circle is identical to the casting time of Planar Binding. If the same caster casts both spells, the bound creature will be released at the beginning of the caster's turn in which he would complete the Planar Binding. That gives the bound creature an opportunity to Ready an action either to try to move more than 60' from the caster (causing the binding to fail) or attack/disable the caster to interrupt the binding. Avoiding this requires the magic circle to be cast by a different caster (or for the caster to be a multiclass sorcerer with Extend spell).

The second problem is that the caster of Planar Binding can't concentrate on a summoning spell while casting Planar Binding. So unless the creature was summoned by a spell that does not require concentration and lasts at least one hour, the summoning spell has to be cast by a different caster than the planar binding.

The third problem is that if the same caster tries to cast both the Magic Circle and then a summoning spell, the Planar Binding can't begin until the second round of Magic Circle's duration. This means that Magic Circle will end a full turn prior to the completion of Magic Binding, giving the creature both a readied action and a full turn to either move more than 60' from the caster or interrupt the Planar Binding.

So, to make Planar Binding work, you ideally need three different casters to synchronize the completion of the summoning spell and Magic Circle with the start of casting Planar Binding. You can potentially pull it off with two casters, but you're risking the creature ruining the Planar Binding with its readied action in the gap between the end of Magic Circle and the completion of Planar Binding.

[Unoriginal]

It is my understanding that Planar Binding suffers from several, overlapping problems.

The first is that the duration of Magic Circle is identical to the casting time of Planar Binding. If the same caster casts both spells, the bound creature will be released at the beginning of the caster's turn in which he would complete the Planar Binding. That gives the bound creature an opportunity to Ready an action either to try to move more than 60' from the caster (causing the binding to fail) or attack/disable the caster to interrupt the binding. Avoiding this requires the magic circle to be cast by a different caster (or for the caster to be a multiclass sorcerer with Extend spell).

The second problem is that the caster of Planar Binding can't concentrate on a summoning spell while casting Planar Binding. So unless the creature was summoned by a spell that does not require concentration and lasts at least one hour, the summoning spell has to be cast by a different caster than the planar binding.

The third problem is that if the same caster tries to cast both the Magic Circle and then a summoning spell, the Planar Binding can't begin until the second round of Magic Circle's duration. This means that Magic Circle will end a full turn prior to the completion of Magic Binding, giving the creature both a readied action and a full turn to either move more than 60' from the caster or interrupt the Planar Binding.

So, to make Planar Binding work, you ideally need three different casters to synchronize the completion of the summoning spell and Magic Circle with the start of casting Planar Binding. You can potentially pull it off with two casters, but you're risking the creature ruining the Planar Binding with its readied action in the gap between the end of Magic Circle and the completion of Planar Binding.

It's not a problem, though.

Yes, binding powerful entities for extended periods of time require several casters. So what? That's supposed to be hard.

If you can restrain an outsider by other means (ex: a devil stuck in a sarcophagus without being able to move), you can can Planar Bindings without those difficulties.

[Xetheral]

It's not a problem, though.

Yes, binding powerful entities for extended periods of time require several casters. So what? That's supposed to be hard.

If you can restrain an outsider by other means (ex: a devil stuck in a sarcophagus without being able to move), you can can Planar Bindings without those difficulties.

If Planar Binding was intended to work with Magic Circle only when multiple casters are involved, I would have expected the text of Planar Binding to say so. Otherwise, you're playing bait-and-switch with players (especially new players) who don't necessarily realize that the spell can't be used in the simple manner in which the text implies it can.

[JoeJ]

It is my understanding that Planar Binding suffers from several, overlapping problems.

The first is that the duration of Magic Circle is identical to the casting time of Planar Binding. If the same caster casts both spells, the bound creature will be released at the beginning of the caster's turn in which he would complete the Planar Binding. That gives the bound creature an opportunity to Ready an action either to try to move more than 60' from the caster (causing the binding to fail) or attack/disable the caster to interrupt the binding. Avoiding this requires the magic circle to be cast by a different caster (or for the caster to be a multiclass sorcerer with Extend spell).

The second problem is that the caster of Planar Binding can't concentrate on a summoning spell while casting Planar Binding. So unless the creature was summoned by a spell that does not require concentration and lasts at least one hour, the summoning spell has to be cast by a different caster than the planar binding.

The third problem is that if the same caster tries to cast both the Magic Circle and then a summoning spell, the Planar Binding can't begin until the second round of Magic Circle's duration. This means that Magic Circle will end a full turn prior to the completion of Magic Binding, giving the creature both a readied action and a full turn to either move more than 60' from the caster or interrupt the Planar Binding.

So, to make Planar Binding work, you ideally need three different casters to synchronize the completion of the summoning spell and Magic Circle with the start of casting Planar Binding. You can potentially pull it off with two casters, but you're risking the creature ruining the Planar Binding with its readied action in the gap between the end of Magic Circle and the completion of Planar Binding.

The duration of Magic Circle can be extended by casting it using a slot of 4th level or higher. And since Planar Binding is a 5th level spell, the caster will have a 4th level slot.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's not a problem, though.

Yes, binding powerful entities for extended periods of time require several casters. So what? That's supposed to be hard.

If you can restrain an outsider by other means (ex: a devil stuck in a sarcophagus without being able to move), you can can Planar Bindings without those difficulties.

Exactly. This isn't broken, merely working other than how some want. 3e's planar binding was game breaking. This is merely useful in the right circumstances.

[Xetheral]

The duration of Magic Circle can be extended by casting it using a slot of 4th level or higher. And since Planar Binding is a 5th level spell, the caster will have a 4th level slot.

Good point. That gets it down to two caster, or one caster if you can find a summoning spell that doesn't require concentration and lasts at least 1 hour + 1 round.

[JackPhoenix]

Actually Planar Binding tells you how to successfully summon, trap and then bind things.

An inverted Magic Circle is a real thing.

Out of all of the nitpicks you could have chosen, you chose one that isn't even ambiguous.

You have to cast Magic Circle first. It has 1-hour duration, but it can be extended (that's important) by using higher level slot. So far so good.
Then you have to summon the creature. Let's go with Conjure Elemental, but other spells work similarily enough. It has a duration of Concentration, up to 1 hour. No problem, Magic Circle doesn't require concentration. It can't be extended, which, again, is important in this case.
Finally, Planar Binding. It has 1-hour cast time, which means it requires concentration... that's no problem, because the summoned elemental will stick around if your concentration gets broken. However, as the elemental must be summoned first, the conjure spell's 1-hour duration will run out before you finish the 1-hour-long casting of Planar Binding.

You're right, it's not ambiguous: you can't conjure and bind a creature at all per strict RAW, unless you use Wish to replicate the effect of Planar Binding as an action. Even if you get another caster to summon the creature for you, it won't work, because the creature must be present before you start casting, and thus disappear before you finish casting. One exception is when the summoner is a sorcerer with Extend Spell, but he can't bind the creature himself, because (even if he extends the duration), once the concentration is broken (because he's concentrating on casting Planar Binding), the creature will disappear 1-hour after he's cast the conjuration per the spell's text.

[JoeJ]

Good point. That gets it down to two caster, or one caster if you can find a summoning spell that doesn't require concentration and lasts at least 1 hour + 1 round.

Gate. When the spell ends, the gate shuts but anything that came through, or was drawn through, remains. If you don't have a 9th level slot yet, you can still try to cast this from a scroll.

[Aimeryan]

Using 'STRC' for 'spell that requires concentration'.

I've been busy, not had time to reply. Rather than reply through each post I'll just summarise:

There are two arguments with this; 1. Does concentrating on something that is not a STRC break concentration of a STRC? 2. Does the concentration of the previous STRC break when cast or during casting of a STRC?


For 1 (relevant for casting something like Alarm which has a long casting time):

The book only specifies three things that break concentration of a STRC and the concentration required for longer casting times is not one of them. In case you are wondering, the book doesn't specify concentrating on the following breaks a STRC either: finding Wally (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where%27s_Wally%3F), funambulism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tightrope_walking), calculus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus), or translation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translation).



For 2 (relevant for casting a STRC while you have something like Invisibility up which is itself an STRC):

Cast and casting are different states. To cast a spell you need to go through the casting process, which is why the two are related to each other and often appear in the same sections, but they are most definitely not the same. If something says 'X happens when cast' this does not mean 'X happens while casting'. As a computer scientist I can tell you that you would end up with very faulty code if you tried to make things happen while casting but wrote the code to happen when cast.

The book specifies that you lose concentration when you cast another STRC - so that is when you lose it, not during casting.

[Unoriginal]

Using 'STRC' for 'spell that requires concentration'.

[...]
For 1 (relevant for casting something like Alarm which has a long casting time):

The book only specifies three things that break concentration of a STRC and the concentration required for longer casting times is not one of them.


Could you please explain how a spell that cannot be cast unless you use concentration is not a spell that requires concentration?

[Aimeryan]

Could you please explain how a spell that cannot be cast unless you use concentration is not a spell that requires concentration?

In the same way that crafting a table requires concentration but the table itself does not. Trust me - I've forgot to concentrate on my table a lot of times and I still hit into it.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Locked for review.